SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shishu Pal & Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010

Allahabad High Court Shishu Pal & Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010

Court No.5

C.M.An. No.122481 of 2009

in re

Crl. Appeal No.2227 of 2009

Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Respondent Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an application for correction of the order dated 18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file was sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide order dated 12.1.2010.

This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.16 of 2004 under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2225 of 2009 which pertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411 I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of 2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2009 ,which requires correction.

Let Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004) be substituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of 2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009. The application for correction is accordingly allowed. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2009

Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P. Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2225 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble Shri Kant,J. In pursuance of order passed today after nomination of this Bench by Hon’ble Senior Judge in correction application no.122481 of 2009. ” Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7. 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8,Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004 arising out of crime no.16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait Nagar, district Barabanki whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. The maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is five years under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Admit. Summon the lower court record.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and never misused the same. It was further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of morphine which was found on analysis less than the commercial quantity. No public witness was examined during the trial to prove the recovery. It was further submitted that there is no prospect of the appeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the appellant Mukesh Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004 arising out of crime no. 16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The realization of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of fine within one month. On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond,the lower court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.

Let the paper books be prepared.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.” 1.2.2010/Tripathi

Court No.5

C.M.An. No.122480 of 2009

in re

Crl. Appeal No.2178 of 2009

Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Respondent Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an application for correction of the order dated 18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file was sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide order dated 12.1.2010..

This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.15 of 2004 under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 which pertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411 I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of 2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 ,which requires correction.

Let Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004) be substituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of 2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009. The application for correction is accordingly allowed. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009

Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. Respondent Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. in pursuance of order passed today after nomination of this Bench by Hon’ble Senior Judge in correction application no.122480 of 2009. “Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order. The appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004 ( Crime No. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabnki whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. The maximum sentence imposed on the appellant is five years under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985.

Admit. Summon the record.

Summon the lower court record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and never abused the same. It was further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of Morphine which was found on analysis less than the commercial quantity. No public witness was examined during the trial to prove the recovery. It was further submitted that there is no prospect of the appeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the appellant Pradeep Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004 (Crime No. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait Nagar,district Barabanki under Sections 8/21 the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of the fine within one month.

On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond, the lower 2

court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to the Court for being kept on record of this appeal

. Let the paper book be prepared. List the appeal for hearing in due course.” 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2489 of 2009

Ajay Kumar Rastogi alias Pintu . ..Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. ………Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 677 of 2006 (Crime No. 500 of 2006 Police Station Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri,) the appellant Ajay Kumar Rastogi alias Pintu along with Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 304/34 I.P.C. for a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. He further submitted that co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi having similar case has been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated11.11.2009 and the allegations against the appellant are similar to that of co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal, and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, this fact has not been controverted by learned A.G.A. that similarly situated co- accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been admitted to bail. Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 29.1.2010

Tripathi

Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Learned counsel for the appellant does not press this time barred appeal at this stage. It is therefore, dismissed accordingly as not pressed.

28.1.2010.

Tripathi.

Crl. Misc. Application No.7453 of 2010.

In re :

Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Rejected vide my order of date passed on memo of appeal.

28.1.2010.

Tripathi.

This is an application for recall of the order dated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.

It has been stated in the affidavit annexed with the application that when the case was fixed for hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for the petitioner could not appear in the Court because he could not see the case in the cause list. Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient The petitioner was not going to be benefited by getting the petition dismissed in default. The application is allowed. The order dated 26.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

List the petition for hearing.

21.1.2010

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2010

Pankaj Kumar Tewari and another. …..Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002 (Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and have have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter. 28.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2010

Suresh Pandit @ Nanku …..Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Suresh Pandit @ Nanku has been convicted in Special Sessions Trial No.19 of 2002 (Case Crime No.172/2005) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused- appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010

Hasmat Ullah and others …..Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Hasmat Ullah, Ikbal Kha and Ishhak Kha have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.529 of 2005 (Case Crime No.C-35/2004) for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 452 is three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s additional imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2010

Israj and another …..Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Israj and Kalloo have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.884 of 1997 (Case Crime No.63 of 1994) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2010

Suneel …..Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Suneel has been convicted in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2006 (Case Crime No.534 of 2004) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010

Karta Ram and another. …..Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Karta Ram and Vinod have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2002 (Case Crime No.C-25/2001) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323 I.P.C. is one year’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ additional simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2876 of 2009

Siya Ram and another. …..Appellants Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.

In S.T.No.137 of 2003 (Crime No.230 of 2000), the appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram alongwith one another namely Badlu have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. That the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Badlu and the appellants have been assigned the role of exhortation. That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and the appellants have every hope of success in appeal.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It reveals from the record that role of firing has not been assigned to any of the appellants. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants has substance. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence, adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2010

Bandesh Singh …….Appellant Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh …….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.

In S.T.No.513 of 2001 (case crime no.160 of 1999), appellant Bandesh Singh has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him is three years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ imprisonment.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and that appellant was on bail during trial and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only three years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be :2:

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2010

Shailendra Kumar Tiwari …….Appellant Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh …….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.

In S.T.No.315 of 2005 (case crime no.233 of 2004), appellant Shailendra Kumar Tiwari has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He further contended that on the same evidence of co-accused Kaushal Kishore Tiwari and Mahesh Tiwari have been acquitted. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to him is four years’ rigorous imprisonment and that appellant was on bail during trial and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only four years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case :2:

Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 27.1.2010

Tripathi

Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.

In re :

Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).

Ashok Vs. State of U.P.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant.

This appeal has been filed after a

period of limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

A.G.A. to file objection against the

application the application for condonation of delay within fifteen days.

List thereafter.

25.1.2010.

Tripathi

Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).

Ashok Vs. State of U.P.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

List alongwith application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act with Crl. Appeal No.2820 of 2009.

25.1.2010.

Tripathi

Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.

In re :

Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).

Ashok Vs. State of U.P.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant.

This appeal has been filed after a

period of limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

A.G.A. to file objection against the

application the application for condonation of delay within fifteen days.

List thereafter.

25.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2010

Rakesh Kumar Singh and another.

Appellants

Vs.

State of U.P.

….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shobh Nath Singh have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2006 (Case Crime No.33/05) for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 504. 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. was one year’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010

Riyaz Ahmad

Appellant

Vs.

State of U.P.

….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006) (N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused- appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010

Tripathi

ourt No. 7

Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010

Riyaz Ahmad

Appellant

Vs.

State of U.P.

….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006) (N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused- appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010

Tripathi

Original Suit No. 865 of 1997

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Taken up today.

Sri Mohit Kumar, plaintiff in person

and Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate

assisted by Sri Sanjeev Agrawal for

defendant Dato Mohan Swami are present.

Today in this case both the parties

have to admit and deny the documents

filed by each other. The documents are

alleged to be in a sealed cover with the Registrar which have not been sent to

this Court today with the file. Both the parties pray that this case be also taken up from morning on10th February,2010

when other cases between the parties

are fixed for hearing.

As prayed by the parties, this

case be fixed on 10th February,2010 for

hearing.

Registrar of the Court is directed

to produce the documents kept in sealed

cover in the Court on the date fixed at the time of hearing.

21.1.2010

Tripathi

Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2004

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Taken up today for hearing.

The applicant Mohit Kumar in

person and Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar

Agrawal for Dr. Dato Mohan Swami are

present.

Since both the testamentary

cases are to be heard together and

Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 has

been fixed for hearing on 10th February,2010, therefore, this case be

also be fixed for hearing on the same

day.

21.1.2010

Tripathi

Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003

Hon’ble Vedpal,J

Taken up today for hearing.

Heard Sri N.K. Seth, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for petitioner and Sri Mohit Kumar, opposite party in person.

Sri Mohit Kumar states that his C.M.An. No.69254 of 2009 is pending for disposal. Sri N.K. Seth, Senior Counsel states that the petitioner Sri Dato Mohan Swami has moved an application before Hon’ble the Supreme Court for modification/ clarification of the order dated 27.3. 2008 and the application of Sri Mohit Kumar pertains to the matter for which application for clarification/ modification is pending for hearing before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up on 8.2.2010. He also states that his C.M. Application No. 12334 of 2009 is also pending for disposal and the copy of this application was sent to Sri Mohit Kumar by post but Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has not received the same, on which Sri N.K.Seth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner furnished copy of Application No. 124334 of 2009 to Sri Mohit Kumar today before the Court. Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has to file an objection against C.M.An. No. 124334 of 2009, the copy of which has been furnished him today. He seeks fifteen days’ time to file objection. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed that C.M. An. No.69254 of 2009 moved by Sri Mohit Kumar be heard after 8th February,2010 and Sri Mohit Kumar also seeks time to file objection against petitioner’s application no.124334 of 2009, therefore, with the consent of both the parties the case is fixed for 10th February,2010 for hearing. Both the applications moved by the petitioner Dr. Dato Mohan Swami as well as Sri Mohit Kumar shall be heard on that date.

21.1.2010

Tripathi

Civil Misc. An. No.4672 of 2010

in re

Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006

Ram Pal Vs. Jokhu

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an application for recall of the order dated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.

It has been stated in the affidavit annexed with the application that when the case was fixed for hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for the petitioner could not appear in the Court because he could not see the case in the cause list. Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient The petitioner was not going to be benefited by getting the petition dismissed in default. The application is allowed. The order dated 26.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

List the petition for hearing.

21.1.2010

Tripathi

I have gone through the representation of the employee (Sarfraj Ahmad,Stenographer,Bahraich Judgeship) dated 31.7.2007, the report of the District Judge dated 24.9.2009 and the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 21.4.2005, passed in W.P.No.5877(SS) of 1990. The applicant joined the service on 1.10.1986 as a Stenographer in Bahraich Judgeship. He was ceased from service from time to time, I.e, 1.5.1988 to 4.1.1989,1.2.1990 to 14.2.1990,17.2.1990 to 24.5.1990,1.5.1990 to 26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4. 1992, but by means of the W.P.No. 5877(SS) of 1990 he challenged the order dated 1.6. 1990 ,ceasing him from services. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. Consequent to the said order, passed in the writ petition, the applicant shall be deemed to be in continuous service. The District Judge in his report dated 24.9.2009 has reported that no departmental enquiry is pending against the applicant. Nothing adverse has been reported by the District Judge against the applicant.

In view of the above, the representation is allowed and the District Judge, Bahraich is directed to pay salary of the period from 1.6.1990 to 26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4.1992 with all consequential benefits including the increment.

Tripathi

(Vedpal)

Administrative Judge

Session Division ,Bahraich

Bahraich

25.1.2010

Officer in Charge Computer

I have to say that today,i.e, 25.1.2010 I have uploaded wrong order in Crl.Appeal No.138 of 2010, passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. In Court No.5. Kindly get it deleted at the earliest.

(S.P.Tripathi)

P.S. to

Hon”ble Vedpal,J.

Employee No. 2515

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2010

Ashok Kumar Chaubey and another.

Appellants

Vs.

State of U.P.

….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Ashok Kumar Chaubey and Shiv Kumar Chaubey have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004 (Case Crime No. 50 of 1998) for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 (2)I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda . The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act was one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 25.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No. 7

Criminal Appeal No.2709 of 2009

Shri Ram Yadav and another.

…….Appellants

Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh

…….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.

In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellants Shri Ram Yadav and Raj Kumar have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

As per prosecution version, accused appellant Shri Ram Yadav was found in possession of 30 bags of sugar and appellant Raj Kumar was found in possession of twenty five bags of sugar which was the property in relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely Ishak Ali @ Mama and Chand Babu. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence against the appellants that they were in knowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from his possession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed and as such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C. but at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on Moinuddin Mozumdar Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1972 SC 655. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to them is five years’ rigorous imprisonment and that appellants were on bail during trial and the trial was pending against them since 1992 and alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have every hope of success in appeal.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the

parties probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellants when on bail during the trial, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellants be released on bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on them by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010

Tripathi.

I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case as discussed above, on the same evidence co-accused Ram Saran has also been acquitted against whom the charge was for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 5.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2230 of 2009

Satish. .. …Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 275 of 1997(Crime No. 154 of 1994), . the appellant Satish has been convicted and sentenced to ten years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.2000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 304 I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one. It was further contended that as per prosecution version there was an altercation between the appellant Satish and deceased Buddha. That deceased Buddha had given a Danda blow to Satish whereupon Satish had also given Phanti blow to Buddha on 2.4. 1994 at 10 a.m. It has further been contended that the deceased died on 3. 4.1994 at the house of one Shri Ram. It has further been contended that in the post mortem report ligature mark on the neck of the body of the deceased was found and it was not prosecution version that the accused caused this injury and thus, the death was not the result of the injuries allegedly caused to the deceased by the accused-appellant. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It reveals from the perusal of the record that as per prosecution version accused had given only one blow of Phanti to deceased Buddha,while at the time of post mortem examination ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased. The prosecution has not explained from where this injury was received by deceased. The death of deceased had also occurred on the next day of the incident at the house of one Sri Ram. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence,adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he 2

deposits fine imposed by the trial court. The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter. 28.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2931 of 2009

Sandeep Rawat @ Panta …Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), appellant Sandeep Rawat alias Panta has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395,397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted is not made out. That the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was put up for identification and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime in question. That only evidence against him is the alleged recovery of golden bangles. It has further been contended that the alleged recovery is also doubtful as arrest of the applicant after which recovery is said to have been made out was held doubtful in the judgment of S.T.No.896 of 2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It is also submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Vinita Chandra has stated in her evidence that applicant was previously known to her but even then applicant was not named in the F.I.R. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant have substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability factor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of imprisonment.

Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant deposits fine imposed on him by the trial court. On furnishing the required bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

28.1.2010/Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2946 of 2009

Arif alias Modi …Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.1167 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), appellant Arif alias Modi has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395,397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted is not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant. That the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was put up for identification and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime in question. That only evidence against him is the alleged recovery of golden chain. It has further been contended that the alleged recovery is also doubtful as arrest of the applicant after which recovery is said to have been made out was held doubtful in the judgment of S.T.No.896 of 2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It was further submitted that appellant Arif was allegedly arrested by the police on 8.9.2005 while telegram regarding his arrest was given on 6.9.2005, much earlier the date of alleged arrest and recovery. It was also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in this appeal.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant have substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability factor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of imprisonment.

Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant :2:

deposits fine imposed on him by the trial court. On furnishing the required bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

28.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.3026 of 2009

Raju …Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), the appellant Raju has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted is not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant. That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and only evidence against him is the alleged recovery of mobile, which has not been described in the F.I.R. and no Sim number of the mobile was given in the F.I.R. and it is common article. It was further contended that the appellant was put up for identification before the three witnesses but none of them could identify him. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal, so he deserves bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits fine imposed by the trial court. The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine.

28.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.3029 of 2009

Javed and another …Appellants Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), the appellants Javed and Sharik [email protected] Poot @ Pootar have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused have been convicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one. It has further been contended that the appellants Javed and Sharik Hussain @ Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three witnesses but none of them could identify him and there is no other evidence against them. That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and they have every hope of success in appeal, and as such they deserve bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It reveals from perusal of the record that appellants Javed and Sharik Hussain @ Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three witnesses but none could identify them and they were also not named in the F.I.R. and no article is alleged to have been recovered from their possession.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

28.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2009

Abhai Raj Singh …Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.82 of 1999 (Crime No. 80 of 1999, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki), the appellant Abhai Raj Singh has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 I.P.C. for a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against the appellant. That prosecutrix is a married and major woman and the prosecution story as put forward is not probable. That as per prosecution version the prosecutrix was taken forcibly in a sugar cane field where the rape is alleged to have been committed but no external mark of injury was found at the time of medical examination which belies the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal, and as such he deserves bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major and married woman. At the time of medical examination, no mark of injury was found on her person, even though it is alleged that she was forcibly taken in the sugar cane field. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 29.1.2010

Tripathi

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for

hearing.

Summon the record within

fifteen days.

List the appeal thereafter for

hearing on the prayer for bail.

Objection against the prayer for

bail, if any, may be filed by learned A.G.A. in the meantime.

29.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.2617 of 2009

Raj Kamal Singh and others. …Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ………Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.441 of 2008 (Crime No.171 of 2007), Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, the appellants Raj Kamal Singh, Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 307/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them is eight years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.8,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Raj Kamal Singh has not been pressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as not pressed.

In regard to appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against the appellants. That the role of causing fatal injury to Vinod Kumar by fire arm has been assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and no role of causing injury has been assigned to them. That it has further been contended that there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question and their participation in the incident is not proved beyond doubt. That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and they have every hope of success in appeal, and as such they deserve bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been conceded that the role of causing injury to Vinod Kumar, has been assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and role of causing injury was not assigned to the appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh. Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment against these three appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

29.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2566 of 2009

Ramu and another Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No.752 of 2007 (Crime No. 257 of 2007,Police Station Biswan,Sitapur), the appellants Ramu and Kialsh have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304/34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Ramu has not been pressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as not pressed. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against them on the basis of which they could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. It has further been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable. He further submitted that appellant Kailash has been assigned the role of catching hold only and the main role of causing fatal injuries has been assigned to Ramu. That the appellant Kailash was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been contended that Kailash has been assigned the role of catching hold and the role of causing fatal injuries has been assigned to Ramu. Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant Kailash can be released on bail during the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal qua the appellant Kailash.

29.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2009

Ujagar Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 66 of 2007 (Crime No. 146 of 2006,Police Station Khairabad, Sitapur ), the appellant Ujagar has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It has further been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has attained the age of discretion and is above 18 years of age and she in her statement has deposed that she had relation with the appellant Ujagar since last one month from the date of incident and, thus, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant and the appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 29.1.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2010

Munna Surti ….. Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties

The appeal is admitted for hearing

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Munna Surti has been convicted in Sessions Trial No 503 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 439 of 2002) for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo five months’ s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ imprisonment . Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed upon him by the trial court.

Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 29.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2010

Sri Nath and others …..Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties .

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Sri Nath, Kalika and Ram Bhawan have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1996 (Case Crime 490 of 1996) for the offence punishable under Sections 323,506 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act .The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. is one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court. Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 29.1.2010.

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2466 of 2009

Salauddin Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 567 A of 2007 (Crime No. 112 of 2006,Police Station Thakurganj, Lucknow ), the appellant Salauddin has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in this case co-accused Mahendra Kumar Gupta and Nasir were acquitted on the same evidence, on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted. It was further stated that initially it was alleged that injuries were caused with knife while during trial the knife was converted into Chapar. All the injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant were simple in nature and at the most the offence falls under Section 324 I.P.C. only and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2..2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 2009

Smt. Kisana Devi and another Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 252 of 2003 (Crime No. 121 of 2001,Police Station Lalganj, Rae Bareli ), the appellants Smt. Kisana Devi and Sri Ram Bahadur have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363/366 I.P.C.The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 366 I.P.C. is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s imprisonment.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against them on the basis of which they could have been convicted. It has further been contended that the appellants are not named in the F.I.R., though F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of 22 days and as per medical certificate and in the statement of the prosecutrix the age of the prosecutrix was about 18 years. That prosecution version is not probable against the appellants and they have every hope of success in appeal . That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and as such they deserve bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2010

Bobby Singh Appellant Vs.

The State ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Bobby Singh has been convicted in Special Session Trial No.76 of 2007 (Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 ) for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail, and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed upon him by the trial court.

Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2010

Ramu Appellant Vs.

The State of U.P. ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Ramu has been convicted in S.T.No. 439 of 2009( Crime No. 489 of 2008) under Section 3/25 ( 1-b (a) Arms Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional six months’ rigorous improvement. Accused- appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed upon him by the trial court.

Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010

Smt. Vimla and another Appellants Vs.

The State ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Smt. Vimla has been convicted in Session Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment. The accused-appellant Kamla has been convicted in Session Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court. Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010

Smt. Vimla and another Appellants Vs.

The State ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Smt. Vimla has been convicted in Session Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment. The accused-appellant Kamla has been convicted in Session Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.

In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.

Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010

Prem Narayan and others Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. ….Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.

The accused-appellants Prem Narayan, Ram Padarath, Babban and Jabbar have been convicted in S.T.No. 18 of 2009(Crime No. 3 of 2007) under Sections 323/34 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded them under Section 506 I.P.C. is two and half years rigorous imprisonment. The accused -appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned. Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2010

Jagannath and others Appellants Vs.

The State ….Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Jagannath,Pramod, Shyamu alias Bhayanna, Ramesh and Keshav have been convicted in S.T.No. 739 of 2007( Crime No. 189 of 2007) under Sections 147,323/149 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323/149 I.P.C. is one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The accused -appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned. Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 1.2.2010

Tripathi

Criminal Appeal No.2177 of 2009

Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

The order which was passed in this

criminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.

The order corrected today.

List appeal for hearing on prayer for

bail in the next cause list along with Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.

1.2.2010

Tripathi

Criminal Appeal No.2225 of 2009

Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

The order which was passed in this

criminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.

The order corrected today.

List appeal for hearing on prayer for

bail in the next cause list along with Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.

1.2.2010

Tripathi

Incharge Computer

I have inadvertently uploaded wrong oder in Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009 Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. , the order dated 1.2.2010,passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. Kindly delete the said order at the earliest.

Shri Prakash Tripathi

P.S.

2.2.2010

EMPLOYEE n No. 2515

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2010

Shishu Pal and others Appellants Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party .

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellants Shishu Pal, Shambhu Yadav and Sewak have been convicted under Sections 323/34,506 I.P.C. and 3 (1)(X) S.C. and S.T.Act in Special Session Trial No. 62 of 1999 (Crime No. 63 of 1998). The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act was one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000/- on each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.

The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No.5

Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2010

Raju Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party .

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard the parties.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list the appeal for hearing in due course.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order. The accused-appellant Raju has been convicted in S.T.No. 401 of 2005 (Crime No. 8 of 1991) under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. The appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.

Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2000 of 2009

Sharvan Kumar Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 1389 of 2008 (Crime No. 223 of 2008) the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.PC. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 376 I.P.C. is seven years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default of of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the proscutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident as per medical examination. Thus, she had attained the age of discretion and remained with the accused for about four days and she did not raise any alarm at that time. That presently the prosecutrix and the appellant are residing with each other as a husband and a wife and on the basis of the evidence on record the offence for which the accused-appellant has been convicted is not made out and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2..2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Crl. Misc.An. No.92379 of 2009

in re

Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2008

Rajnesh Applicant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S. T. No. 717 of 2007 ( Crime No. 290/2007) the appellant Rajnesh along with Hansu has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) G I.P.C. The maximum punishment awarded to them under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. is ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of two months. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that co-accused Hansu having similar case has already been admitted to bail by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh under his order dated 1.5. 2009 as the allegation of rape was also against the appellant Hansu admitted to bail. It has further been contended that as per medical examination the prosecutrix is a major girl and she remained with the accused for about six months,but she did not raise any objection while she was living with the appellant .It has further been contended that the brother of the prosecutrix himself has deposed in support of the appellant that his father wanted to marry his sister with the appellant Rajnesh. That there is every hope of success in appeal and as such appellant deserves bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it is conceded by learned A.G.A. that co -accused has been admitted to bail and the prosecutrix is a major girl.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support from the record. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that appellant too can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2..2010/Tripathi

Court No. 5

Crl. Misc. An. No.12352 of 2008

in re

Crl. Appeal No.1088 of 2007

Mohd. Sageer Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party

Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

This is an application for stay of the amount of fine till the disposal of the appeal.

The order granting bail to the appellant was passed on 21.1.2008 by Hon’ble Mr Justice K.K.Mishra ( since retired). There must be sufficient ground to stay the realization of fine while granting bail to the appellant. No such ground has been shown in the affidavit, accompanying this application.

No sufficient ground exists for staying the realization of fine. The application is rejected.

2.2.2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2007

Anit Kumar Awasthi Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 874 of 2004(Crime No. 417 of 2003) the appellant Anit Kumar Awasthi has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 306 I.P.C. is seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-appellant is in jail since the last four and half years and out of maximum sentence awarded to him for a period of seven years, he has undergone substantial portion of the imprisonment. During the trial he was on bail and he never misused the liberty of bail and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been conceded by learned A.G.A. that the appellant has undergone substantial portion of his sentence.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits one-fourth amount of the fine imposed on him by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment and realization of rest of the amount of fine shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2..2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 2442 of 2009

Deep Narain Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 454 of 2003 ( Crime No. 667of 2003) the appellant Deep Narain was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 (2), 308, 323 and 336 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 304(2) I.P.C. eight years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that only role assigned to the appellant in the FIR is that of exhortation and as per prosecution version fatal injury to the deceased was not caused by Deep Narayan and the appellant is about 85 years of age and the probability factors eco against the prosecution version and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail. Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. In the F.I.R. only role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant. The appellant is 85 years of age. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support from the record. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.

2.2..2010

Tripathi

Court No. 5

Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2009

Taslim Appellant Vs.

State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon’ble Vedpal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case. In S.T.No. 349 of 2003(Crime No. 251 of 2002) the appellant Taslim along with two others has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 307 I.P.C. is seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been convicted for the offences for which he has been convicted It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Taslim is said to have been armed with rifle during the incident but no injury caused by fire of rifle was found on the person of Nirmal Singh and all the injuries were found to have been caused from the firing of gun as in the X-ray examination pellets were found. It has further been submitted that injured Nirmal, who sustained gun shot injuries, had also stated that unknown person had made fire on him with gun and thus there is no evidence to connect Taslim with the present case. It has further been submitted that after investigation of the case final report was submitted against Taslim and he was summoned to face trial under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.

Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support from the evidence on record. In view of the above, having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 2.2.2010

Tripathi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation